In Argentina the soybean
cultivation presents a paradox, in which the government and the industry define
the soybean productive system as part the solution to mitigate the effects of
the Green House Gas Emissions (GHGE), while researchers, agronomists and
environmentalists see the plantations as part of the global warming problem.

This written assignment
aims to confront the two arguments in relation to the Kyoto Protocol provisions
and, by doing so, to describe how the economic circumstances and market
interests affect the assessment of the GHGE from the soybean cultivation in Argentina,
my country.

The case study will highlight the
different positions regarding the near-ignored CO2 equivalent
emissions to the atmosphere from 15 million of hectares cultivated with
soybean, as reported by the Argentina’s second national
communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(Dec 2004). [1] In the
report, the experts ask, among other points, for conclusive information on the
GHGE from agricultural residues produced as result of the non till cultivation
system.

In order to understand the
government’s near to indifferent reaction to the report giving the total value
of natural emissions produced by the soybean plants, I will comment on the
economic relevance of the soybean exports, and the opportunity presented to the
establishment by the “Clean trade mechanism” (CDM) under the Kyoto convention.

To oppose the government’s
position, I will briefly discuss the existing findings concerning GHGE produced
by soybean in Argentina and, further, the need for conclusive research on the
less well documented emissions from soybean waste, nitrogen fertilization and
the use of deforested lands. Some of these points were already raised by the
experts in charge of the compilation of the national inventory for the
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2004.

The case will be developed
taking into account the government’s GHGE mitigation targets and the various
assessments developed with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) funds. This
fact will allow us to recognise the Global Warming problem enclosure, from a
country which is not an important CO2 polluter, but which could
profit from the trading of emissions. The theory of ecological modernisation
will be also briefly mentioned as a means to adapt an environmentally perceived
problem into regulation, which has to adjust to the current political and
economic circumstances of the country.

2. Argentina and the Kyoto
Protocol

How the Argentinean Government
defines and closes the problem

Under the Kyoto agreement,
the Republic of Argentina is not subject to GHGE reduction targets as the
industrialised nations are, but the country, as signatory of the United Nation
Framework Convention on climate change[2],
adopted a number of legal tools allowing it to implement the international
regime in different activities.

To implement the objectives
signed in the Kyoto protocol, the government created in 1993 a “Climate Change
Unit” within the Environment Secretariat (ES), whose duties are:

• The elaboration
and periodical updating of GHGE National inventories.

• The formulation
and implementation of national programs to mitigate and to facilitate the
adaptation to climate change.

The Global Environment
Facility has been granted this year to the Argentinean government with
1.140.000 US$.[4] The
Environment Secretariat allocated the funds to Fundacion Bariloche, a
prestigious environmental NGO created in 1963, in charge of the development of
the GHGE assessment and mitigation programmes.

The GEF funded programme
objectives described below help us to identify the tools which the Government
will use to produce policies to mitigate the GHGE within its territory and with
this, the processes by which it defines the global warming problem.

The GEF program has four
objectives:

·The production of a Green House Gases inventory to be
presented at the UN Conference on Climatic Change. The study will take
statistics starting from the year 2000.

·The assessment of the country’s vulnerability to
climate change.

·The effect climatic change on the agricultural
production in the Pampas region, in the centre of the country, which has
recently experienced floods and drought.

·Formulation of a Mitigation National Program, which
includes the reduction of GHGE to the atmosphere. The experts are asked to
recommend policy actions to neutralize the damages produced in the atmosphere
by carbon dioxide and the methane originating emissions due to enteric
fermentation by cattle.

·Measures to create public awareness about global
warming, the impact of the changes of the climate in the population.

The objectives to be
executed with the GEF funds focus on the assessment of the effects of global
warming, including the compilation of the ICPP inventory and the formulation of
a National Program address to mitigate the emissions. The mitigation strategy
of emissions proposed by Argentina and accepted by the GEF for funding targeted
the transport sector and the promotion of renewable energy, with a specific
mention to bio-fuels. The only specifically agricultural mitigation measure in
the proposal concerned the mitigation of enteric methane emissions from cattle.
Argentina is also proposing an assessment of the opportunities for carbon
sequestration trade. [5]

Argentinean foreign office
Junior Minister, Dr Estrada Oyuela commented that, as part of the possible
mitigation measures, new types of cattle diet could be tested, in order to
produce less methane.[6]

The lack of concern from the
Government about the GHGE from agricultural activities it is also reflected in
other ministerial declarations. Estrada Oyuela noted that CO2
equivalent gases discharged to the atmosphere in the year 2000 were around 292
million tons, less than the 7 billion tons the US was emitting. The minister
highlighted that the emissions from agricultural activities were only 46% of
the country’s total and that only 25% was coming from the soybean cultivation.[7]

The above statements show
that the government is not concerned about the GHGE in general and do not
acknowledge the recommendation from the 2nd communication, mentioned
in the introduction, on agriculture about conclusive research on the soybean
residues. According to the government, the problem to be mitigated in
agriculture is merely the methane from cattle.

The policy makers are
interested to know the effects of global warming on cultivations rather than
the converse, and this is reflected in the GEF funded programme. The
adjustments related to reduction of GHGE in Argentina, focus on the CO2
emissions from transport and electricity. The GHGE from the soybean cultivation
is not a matter for discussion.

3. Soybean
cultivation could be an important contributor to the global warming

The point I want to stress
in this assignment is that it is important to include in the national
assessments on the GHGE on agriculture under the soybean category the impacts
from agricultural residues, the newly reported nitrogen (N) fertilisation on
the plantations, the land use changes ( the conversion of forest and grasslands
to soybean productive fields in Argentina has been massive) In addition this
land conversion was and still is accompanied by biomass burning, therefore also
the measurement the GHGE from this activity has to be add to the list. [8]
Below I am explaining the reasons on the need of a more comprehensive
assessment.

3.1
Crop residues

The most important
recommendation of the 2nd National Communication on GHGE from
agricultural activities mentioned above was that there does not exist
conclusive information about the influence on the GHGE from the crop residues
of 15 million hectares, where the no tillage method of cultivation is applied.
The ICPP guideline recommends take into account in the inventories the GHGE from
the cultivation waste and use of deforested lands.[9]
The recommendation applies for the soybean, as the Argentinean experts were
pointing out in 2004, more conclusive assessment it was/is needed. Soybean is
largely produced by the no till system of cultivation, the waste from the
harvest it is left on the soil and this is the type of scenario were important
N2O emissions are produced.

3.2 Fertilisation with
Nitrogen

According to the National
Inventory experts presenting the conclusions, the soybean cultivation is the
largest GHG emitter within the agricultural activities as result of natural
process of nitrification and de-nitrification.[10]
These observations were made from the analysis of empirical data and not field
observations. Such work could allow the investigators to identify that
(surprisingly to many) nitrogen is use to fertilise soybean crops and to
measure the environmental reactions to natural and artificial nitrification and
de nitrification processes.

The above table shows the
increase of the soy cultivation since 1996. We can observe the increase of the
production per hectare across the country. In certain provinces, like Buenos
Aires, the increase in the production per hectare went from 1996 with 1858 kg
to 3077 kg in 2005. Several agronomists say the increase is due to the use of
nitrogen fertilisers. This fact sounds bizarre, given that pulses (including
soy) have been used traditionally to enrich
the soil with nitrogen. The situation however is that the natural nutrients
have been lost due to the high use of agrochemicals and intensive cultivation.
In 2001 FAO, reported that the proportion of soybean farmers in the Pampas
region who were using fertilizers increased from 6% in 1995-97 to 18% in
1999-2000. The fertilisers used on the soybean are diammonium
phosphate (DAP), urea and potassium (K).[12]The trend is
apparently an increased use of nitrogen fertilisers at the beginning of the
cultivation.[13]

3.3 Land use changes and
the burning of biomass

The spreading of the
agricultural lands is occurring in Argentina; since the 1950s 100.000 Sq km has
been gained to the agricultural borders and over the degraded forests and
pastures.[14] Part of the reason for the most
recent expansion is the high profitability of soy; this has been and it is an
stimulus for trespassing the natural agricultural borders. Argentinean
scientists informed in September 2005 that the trend to burn degraded forest
and pastures for soy and cattle production is alarming across the whole of
South America. Due to the scope of this assignment and the difficulty
to access to conclusive data, I am limiting my comment on the need to
measure the emissions on land use changes to the remarks made recently by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:

“The North American
countries are emitting around 5000 million tons per year of carbon dioxide
(CO2) gasses from industrial activities. In South America, the change of use of
land and the burning of biomass, to develop agricultural production in bulk
releases to the atmosphere 1700 million tons of CO2 equivalent
gasses”.[15]

This deforestation trend
was also expressed by UNEP's Argentina GEO 2004 report when mentions that half
of the Argentinean forest areas could be lost if the expansion of the GM soy
continues as predicted. [16]

All the aspects pointed
above are issues of concern for some specialists and well informed
environmentalists, who are working on global warming issues but it is difficult
to share this preoccupation with other sectors of society as will be read
below.

4.
Soybean as the solution

CARBON
TRADE

“The idea
behind carbon trading is quite similar to the trading of securities or
commodities in a market-place. Carbon would be given an economic value,
allowing people, companies or nations to trade it. If a nation bought
carbon, it would be buying the rights to burn it, and a nation selling carbon
would be giving up its rights to burn it. The value of the carbon would be
based on the ability of the country owning the carbon to store it or to prevent
it from being released into the atmosphere. (The better you are at storing it,
the more you can charge for it.)”

The last resolution,
adopted by the Argentinean government on line with the Clean Development
Mechanism, defined in the article 12 of the Kyoto convention, is the creation
of a National Carbon Fund. (FAC).[18]
The FAC office is accountable to the Climate Change Unit of the Environment
Secretariat.

Internationally, the carbon
trade it is managed by the World Bank and the European Carbon Fund.[19]

Currently the FAC is
inviting different sectors to present proposals to different sectors among the
agricultural. The Bank Biesel, which is based in Argentina and has a service
for clients searching for clean projects investors, is saying similarly to
other international investors, that carbon funds could reach in 2008 a trading
volume of $60 billion to $250 billion.[20]

In a recent article A. Guadani, the Argentinean representative
for the World Bank, praised the carbon certification programme and mentioned
when talking about possible green projects for investment, that of biomass
extracted from agricultural residues and cattle dung residues were better
sources than biomass from sugar cane and traditional cereals[21].
With this comment, the World Bank’s Argentinean representative is supporting
the production of biodiesel from soybean residues against bio-ethanol produced
with sugar cane (this last the favourite Brazilian Bio-fuel) .

The World Bank has been
questioned in the past regarding its performance in selecting the projects for
Carbon Trade Investment. The critics of Carbon Trade involvement of the
international institution say that the Bank was investing in the past in some
locally damaging projects. The examples, for this argument, are the investments
in eucalyptus plantations in Brazil, production of FaL-G brick made with from
fly ash, putting at a great risk of exposure the people handling the material
in India, and the toxic Bisasar dump in Durban, South Africa. [22]
This comment, and Guadani’s remarks, strengthen my opinion that the World
Bank’s involvement in the investment in Argentina with the carbon trade is no
guarantee of environmental fairness.

This year the Environment
Secretariat met with the soybean business representatives to talk about climate
change and the opportunities the carbon trade. In that opportunity, the ES
invited the audience to present projects to the FAC related to the development
of bio diesel made with soybean biomass. In that meeting also become clear that
the industry and govern­ment have as objective to convince the managers of the
carbon trade scheme to accept the soybean fields as for CO2 sink.
During the meeting the director of the ES Climate Change Unit say “this
proposal (soybean fields as CO2 sink) did not have until now
international partners of weight, but that the government will try to reopen
the debate again because it is a matter of interest for the country which
is a world-wide leader in no tillage methods for the soybean production”.[23]

The Kyoto protocol refers
to carbon sequestration in the agricultural sector only under the
re-forestation of former agricultural lands. The debate as to which type of
sink should be included, beyond those listed in this international convention,
is intensive.[24]

Schewarse, who describes comprehensible the talks on carbon
storage on agricultural lands, suggest that sink projects could provide
environmental benefits in addition to climate change mitigation (Schewarse in
Schneider S, et al. 2002: 319/335). As it has been pointed above, this it is
not the case with the Genetically Modified Soybean mono crops in Argentina.

Also Schewarse confirms that “A concern that has received
less attention is the connection between the conservation tillage, one of the
main practices suggested for increasing soil carbon, and genetically modified
(GM) crops”. The Biotech industry is behind arguments as the one presented by a
British consultancy firm in October 2005, which argues that since 1996 the
Genetically Modified Crops across the Globe have been helping to reduce global
warming. [25] According
to PG Limited, this was thanks the reduction in the use of pesticides and
fertilizers. Again, this is not the case in Argentina where, has been proved,
the use of agrochemicals increased. [26]

5. Soybean cultivation and its
economic importance in Argentina

To explain the reasons for the government lack of interest
to measure and asses in the effects of the GHGE from soybean in order to
produce, if needed, mitigation policies, It is necessary to describe briefly
the economical importance the soybean production has for the country.

Currently Argentina is the world’s No. 3 Soya producer. In
2003-04, the surface cultivated with soybean was 14.235.000 m ht. In 2003 7.183
million US$ came to the country from soybean productive complex (soybeans, soy
oil and soybean flour and pellets). Argentina’s principal markets for export
are China, Thailand, Egypt and the European Union. China is Argentina’s main
client, absorbing 75% of the total sales. [27]

The government taxation over the above it is of 20%, and
this constitutes the main income from levies on the country’s exports,
furthermore soy exports are helping to maintain the stability of the local
currency against the US$.[28]

These
facts should be put in context with the Argentina’s well know economic
collapse, at the end of 2001. The reason behind that crisis was the
impossibility of meeting debt payments with the public and private lenders. With
very limited industrial capacity, the only way for Argentina to go out from the
financial default, which inhibited further foreign investment in the country,
was to rely on the export of commodities as the one of the soybean complex.

Soybean
exports are the driving force of the Argentinean economy. To illustrate what
the export of the soybean represents for the economy, we have to refer to the
countries balances in 2003.

In
that year, a quarter of the debt services with the International Organisations
were paid with the income from Soybean exports. At the end of 2003, Soya oils
and seed exports represented 28% of the total value of Argentina’s exports and
provided the treasury with 50% of the tax income from agricultural exports.

It
is calculated that by the end of 2003, Argentina’s sovereign debt was about 179
billion US$. In September 2003, Argentina agreed with the International
Monetary Fund to pay with 3% in excess of its gross domestic product (which
works out at around 4.2 billion US$) per year during the next three years. 40%
of the committed amount was coming from the export from the Soybean exports
complex.[29]

Taking
the economic considerations highlighted above, the soybean cultivation in
Argentina can be understood not just as a good opportunity for the private
sector, but also as convenient for the government’s process of dealing with the
country’s creditors.

Argentina’s
economical constrains with its debts makes difficult the political agenda
setting of a number of important environmental concerns expressed by
scientists, civil society groups and few politicians on the nature and way the
genetically modified soybean cultivation (99% of the production it is
genetically modified) is affecting the wellbeing of the Nation.

These
concerns are from the high use of agrochemicals, deforestation, rural exodus,
soil degradation, water pollution among the most important concerns.[30]

6.
Discussion

Hajer’s method to link discourse and regulation helps us to
put into perspective the importance the Argentinean government is giving to the
global warming problem. (Hajer M, 1995: 93) I identify three basic ideas
occupying the debate:

·Argentina’s emissions are minimal if compared with
the ones release by the United States, and other developed countries.

·Argentina’s mitigation measures are convenient
because will help to face climate change and at the same time through
sustainable behaviour, will allow the developed countries to invest in the
Carbon Trade Scheme.

·Soybean cultivation is and will be supported by the
government as part of the green portfolio to be offer to Carbon bonds
investors.

The recommendations made in December 2004 by the Argentinean
GHGE inventory experts in agriculture about the need for more conclusive
measurements of the emissions from crop residues has not been addressed by the
government until now. This is reflected the deliberate non acknowledgement from
senior government officers manifested by the non allocation of funds from the
GEF to assess the problem.

The process effectiveness
mentioned by (Young O, 1995: 147) could be easily tested by those who would
like to learn if Argentina comply with the Kyoto regime. The expert
recommendation to more conclusive research on the soy waste emissions has been
heard and not challenged, and apparently forgotten.

The inadequacy in the
definition of the global warming problem, which will be discussed below, makes
Argentina look as a country without need to asses its own liabilities and,
thereby, an opportunity for carbon investments from polluter countries.

There is not much known
about the carbon cycle and the emissions, as proved several times. [31]
I consider that opportunities to assess the extent of the emissions from the
Argentinean monocultures, as the experts asked for, should be given priority,
as it is very relevant for the body of knowledge of those managing the IPCC
regime. As in 1985, acceleration of the process to define the global warming
problem was by the production of Scientific consensus (Porter G, et al, 2000:
113), today it is needed a serious review on the emissions produced from
mono/agricultures with the raise of earth temperatures, the agricultural
residues, the use of former forest areas and the use of N fertilizers.

But how to make Argentina study what is going on in the fields,
if there is not an admitted problem? On the contrary, the government met with
the soybean agribusiness representatives in June 2005 where confirmed its
compromise to find investors abroad for projects related to carbon
sequestration and further promotion of biodiesel made with soybean. Also the
World Bank, as demonstrated above, is praising the production of bio Diesel
made with soybean residues.

The difficulty in finding an appropriate problem closure, as
Hajer defines it (Hajer, M 1995:22 -23), is that there is no intention to
determine scientifically whether the gasses released to the atmosphere are a
serious problem which needs to be addressed, in line with the experts
recommendations.

In contrast to other environmental cases, where the problem
definition is caused by a tangible facts, global warming is an event difficult
to be perceive by the lay person and more by impoverished societies as the
Argentinean where the day to day worries are related to concrete survival
problems. Green House Gasses mitigation measures and much less the GHGE from
soybean fields are not at the top of the agenda in the public opinion debate
and the same holds for most of the members of the political class.

This
can be noticed by the little coverage the issue has in the national media, the
activities of social and environmental organisations and in the political
discourses.

In Argentina, the issue has
been imported from the International Arena and as such, the definition of the
problem (for convenience or for ignorance) has not been adjusted to the
Argentinean reality. This fact is reflected in the objectives of the programme
to be developed with the funding given by the Global Environmental Facility,
where what is proposed to be assessed are the effects of global warming in the
Argentinean territory, the mitigation of transport and methane emissions and
the institutional capacity building to assess the opportunities from the carbon
trade market.

As
the problem has been formulated abroad, we should expect the requirements for
more serious assessments also to come from abroad, and this is clearly not the
ideal situation for a democratic country. Nevertheless, I can see that only the
international regime could put pressure on the Argentinean state for
appropriate the assessment of the emissions from the soy activity.

For
instance, there is not much known about the carbon cycle and the emissions. New
evidence has prove recently that the CO2 emissions could come from
CO2 sinks as trees or soil. [32]
In 1985 the acceleration of the process to define the global warming problem,
was made by the production of scientific consensus, which was initiated and
formalised in a meeting organised in Australia by the World Meteorological
Organisation UNEP (Porter, G et al, 2000: 113).

The present challenge for the ICPP could be a serious review
of the emissions produced by the industrial agriculture across the globe. This
should be scrutinise the effects on the fields produced by the raise of earth
temperatures, the agricultural residues, the cultivation of former forest areas
and the use of N fertilizers. Ideally the calculations should be done crop by
crop adding all the variables to each one of the commodities produced. In the
presentation made by the ICPP experts in Argentina the calculations over
fertilisation, use of deforested land, natural N2O emissions were show in
separate. The result could be different if the soybean or any other crop is
presented with the following additional information:

·Quantity of GHGE produced by crop residues

·Quantity of GHGE produced by N fertilisation

·Quantity of GHGE produced by natural fertilisation

·Quantity of GHGE produced by cultivation, e.g.
harvesters, transport.

·Quantity of GHGE produced from former forested and
pastured fields.

I consider that opportunities
to assess the extent of the emissions from the Argentinean monocultures, as the
experts asked for, should be given priority and enough funding to develop
independent research, as it is of paramount importance for the body of
knowledge of those specialists advising the IPCC regime and for those wanting
to produce concrete and honest policy changes independently of the markets
interests.

The Kyoto regime it a good
example to illustrate the how the ecological modernisation works in the
international arena. Initiatives as the production of national inventories for
the GHGE and the Clean Trade Mechanism are measures which are reflecting the
conceptualization of an environmental matter in terms of policy making (Hajer M
1995: 100). The problem arises when ecological modernisation concepts are
transferred for reproduction in impoverished southern countries. For instance,
I find it inadequate for our case study, to compare the countries mentioned by
Dryzek (Dryzek J 1997:138) as examples of the implementation of ecological
modernisation theory.

I consider that Argentina
is developing a devalued version of ecological modernisation principals. The
theory says that ecological modernisation is a system approach which takes
seriously the complex pathways by which production, resource depletion and
pollution are interrelated. If the government is serious in these principals, a
crop production as the one described in this assignment never could take place.

In our case the economic
pressure with the payment of the sovereign debt prioritise the trade of
controversial commodities as the GM soybean and neglects the need of real
assessment on the environmental effects of the cultivation in general. In
parallel the World Bank and other Carbon Trade managers, as the voices of the
environmentally concerned polluter countries, are helping Argentina to develop
its investment portfolio with controversial products. As we saw by now,
projects related to the development of biodiesel from GM soy are in preparation
for the market soon. If the government succeeds with its lobbying of the
International Carbon Traders, offers for investment in soybean carbon
sequestration will appear too.

Therefore the Ecological
Modernisation Theory, when applied to dependant countries like Argentina, is
used just to improve appearances and to compile with international regimes.

In our case, the Clean
Mechanism created by Kyoto favours the interest of the markets, which thus are
influencing even the definition of the problem at national level, creating a
vicious circle.

In her critical article on carbon trade, Bachram says that
while millions of US$ have being invested in setting up carbon bonds schemes,
no resources were allocated into its regulation (Bachram H, 2004:4). With the
same argument, One might wonder, who is going to guarantee the reliability of
the Argentinean portfolio? If from the World Bank the Argentinean
representative is encouraging the projects related to the use the soybean
cultivation waste, for the production of bio diesel and the government is
committed with the promotion of the fields as carbon sink sites projects to
sell in the international financial market.

In Argentina we say “hecha
la ley hecha la trampa” the law is created, the loophole is created.

The Carbon Trade mechanism
has been created and the opportunity to offer misleading green projects has
been also been created. In the case of the GM soybean cultivation, I repeat, is
not only the GHGE what concerns, but also the environmental and social negative
impacts, already addressed in a large number of publications. If real carbon
investment is achieved in this sector, as Bachram says (Bacharam 2004: 13)
environmental injustice will perpetuate and aggravate.

7. Conclusion

The fact that the government is not highlighting the need
for a comprehensive assessment on the direct and indirect emissions from the
soybean cultivation could be understood as the type of variables Young
described as “factors subject to conscious control or manipulation on the part
of those responsible for designing and managing international regimes” (Young
1994: 153)

The ideal situation could
be if the next inventory reports the soybean complex total amount of direct and
indirect emissions from natural and artificial nitrogen fertilization plus the
emissions from deforested lands and the gasses from the soybean residues in
total, although very expensive necessary.

The measurements could give
the opportunity to different national and international actors, if the GHGE
levels are harmful, to put pressure on the government to evaluate honestly
whether the 15 million ht are sustainable and from there to eliminate the
possibility to offer for Carbon investment projects as GM soy for CO2
sequestration or GM soy biomass as source for renewable energy.

If the Argentinean
government accepts the fact and adopts a policy which mitigates in general all
the known causes of emissions from the soy activities (Nitrogen fertilisation,
land change, crop residues emissions) the production will be seriously
affected, and the country’s economy will suffer a great negative impact. If the
policy makers continue business as usual, the long term risk will be even worse
for the whole planet, but in the meantime Argentina will be able to profit not
just of the income of the soybean cultivation but from the carbon trade
emerging market.

[5] Agricultural
mitigation activities fall in two categories: reducing GHGE from agricultural
activities and increasing the amount of carbon that is stored in vegetation and
soils on agricultural lands (Schewarse in, Shneider, Rosencranz and Niles 2002:
307).

[31]Two recent studies made in France and UK, showed that due to the
temperature increase ecosystems which currently
absorb CO2 from the atmosphere may in future produce it, adding to the
greenhouse effect.

[32]Two recent studies made in France and UK, showed that due to the
temperature increase ecosystems which currently
absorb CO2 from the atmosphere may in future produce it, adding to the
greenhouse effect.